The distinction, I think, of the two different ways of interpreting the
Loyalty adjustment rules is that with the Province regent ignoring the
effects of the loyalty adjustment and the province loyalty staying the same
is quite different in the event of losing the law holding after the
adjustments that are made. In "Type 1" (the one that I am advocating), the
loyalty of the province stays the same as long as the negative adjustment is
less than or equal to the amount of negative adjustment being ignored.
Whereas in "Type 2" the province loyalty actually drops, but the end results
are "ignored." That is, in the case of Severe taxation and ignoring a
random event, the loyalty of the province actually drops to rebellion, but
the province cannot rebel due to the 100% lock on the law. If this is
incorrect in my interpretation please let me know.

The only problem with Type 2 loyalty interpretation is that, granted the
province cannot raise levies and fully rebel, but what about the "other"
effects of rebellion, the doubling of the cost of actions performed in the
province, etc. What happens in this case, can this be ignored as well, due
to the 100% of the law holdings being held? Just a question that needs to
be answered

Come to think of it, from a programming standpoint, Type 2 is much harder to
implement logically.... the province is in rebellion but it actually can't
rebel, etc. Granted Type 1 is no walk in the hay either, but I'm kinda
getting off the subject.

Memnoch

- -----Original Message-----
From: Brian Stoner
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Loyalties


>I must admit, though it pains me to do so, that I am confused about the
>differences between the two interpretations of how controlling all the law
>holdings allows one to ignore a 2 grade drop in loyalty, particularly in
the case
>of severe taxation. Clearly, those of you discussing it see the
differences. So,
>if someone could be nice enough to explain them, I would be grateful. I
have
>always felt uneasy about the wording of that section of the rulebook, but I
did
>not know why.
>
>I have interpreted it thus: When all the law holdings are held, a 2 grade
drop in
>loyalty could be ignored. That is, if the grade is average (for example)
it would
>stay at average despite any combination of factors that would normally drop
it by
>2 grades (to rebellion). If another factor drops it by an additional
grade, it
>would drop to poor, and so on. Obviously, if an action is taken so that
the
>regent no longer controls all the law, the ability to ignore these events
would
>cease. I believe this has been the common interpretation.
>
>Is the alternate interpretation that under these circumstances loyalty
would
>indeed drop to "rebellion", but that a rebellion would not actually occur
due to
>the strength of the law? If so, what is the difference in the end result?
Both
>interpretations seem to result in the same situation: one more -1 to
loyalty
>grade will certainly lead to rebellion and anything to weaken the law will
lead to
>rebellion.
>
>Again, if someone could explain the interpretations and their differences
to me, I
>would be grateful.
>
>Brian
>
>************************************************* **************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>